- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:39:20 -0700
- To: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Tyler Close wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren > <annevk@opera.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:38:54 +0900, Jonas Sicking >> <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> >>> As I've said before. I'd be interested in implementing UMP in >>> firefox >>> if we can come up with a reasonable API for using it. I.e. a >>> separate >>> constructor or flag or similar on XHR. This is assuming that UMP >>> is a >>> reasonable subset of CORS. >> >> Have you looked at the proposal I put in XHR2? It sets certain >> flags in CORS >> that make it more or less the same as UMP. > > Why can't it be made exactly like UMP? All of the requirements in UMP > have been discussed at length and in great detail on this list by some > highly qualified people. The current UMP spec reflects all of that > discussion. By your own admission, the CORS spec has not received the > same level of review for these features. Why hasn't CORS adopted the > UMP solution? It should be made exactly like UMP, either by changing CORS, or changing UMP, or some combination of the two. A list of differences between UMP and CORS "anonymous mode" would be most helpful. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 18:39:54 UTC